Hey Lisa,
You COULD always try what I did with one of my clients: When it came =
time to do a redesign/upgrade of his site, I told him flat-out that I =
wasn't going to include NS4 compatibility this time around. He asked =
why. I told him that the site's logs show that less than 5% of all =
visitors to his site were using NS4 or other non-standards-compliant =
browsers. As a result, he had three choices: He could pay me DOUBLE for =
his site (once for the compliant browsers, once for the other 5%), he =
could pay me the normal amount for ONE version of the site compatible =
with the newer browsers and standards and not support the older =
browsers, or he could find someone else to build his site for him.
The result: I'm building his site, and getting only my normal rate. ;-)
I don't recommend people take quite that stance with their clients, =
though. I know this one pretty well, and have worked on his site in =
various forms since 1997 -- from the beginning of it, basically. He =
knows I wouldn't put my name on something I wasn't proud of (you know, =
designed and administered by...), and since he knows I know a lot more =
about his website that he does (I don't put "administered by" on the =
site just for looks), he trusts my judgement when I say it's time to =
leave the past and move forward. Other clients are not so easy to =
manipulate into moving forward, for exactly the reason of wanting the =
largest audience with the greatest coverage. It's very tough to convince =
some of these people, but if you go in there with all your facts in =
order, memorized as best as possible so it looks like you've researched =
the heck out of this subject and actually know what you're talking =
about, and bring in visual aids to help you (like charts, BIG COLORFUL =
CHARTS... suits LOVE charts! ;-) ), then you can possibly turn them away =
from the Dark Side (aka Netscape 4.x and WebTV). Sorry WebTV'rs, but =
really. Surf the Internet on your TV? Please. It's not like having 500 =
digital channels filled with almost nothing of importance at all (reruns =
of The Brady Bunch! Woohoo!), DVD, VHS (though it's dying), 100 channels =
of pay-per-view movies and sports, and whatever videogame console(s) of =
choice isn't enough. Get off the couch already. And cell phones? I'm =
totally resisting the web-on-the-cell-phone fad (for now)... it's not =
like TALKING on the cell phone and driving isn't dangerous enough, let's =
give these people access to the web while they drive, too, so they can =
READ THEIR EMAIL AT 70MPH! Yeah, THAT'S smart!
Ooops... found that damned soapbox again!
Ahem. Anyway, if you're comfortable with your clients and they're =
comfortable with you and trust you, it shouldn't be hard to turn them =
away from oldtech. But you need to make a compelling argument as to WHY =
they should alienate whatever percentage of users going to only newtech =
would cause. My personal opinion is that if the site's stats support it, =
do it. If not, then continue dual-coding for now. My threshhold for the =
cutoff is 10%. Anything below and they're cut. Anything above and I =
continue the dual sites thing. Yes, 1 out of 10 people can seem high, =
but the line HAS to be drawn somewhere, and for me, that's where it is. =
It's just not economically feasable for dual-coding for less than 10% of =
visitors, unless you're doing a site where that 10% equates to a few =
hundred thousand hits per month. In the case of the site I describe, it =
comes nowhere close... more like a couple hundred at the absolute most.
As others have said, your mileage may vary.
Kehvan
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=
:: NORTON ANTI-VIRUS 2002 scanned this email prior to sending. It is =
free
:: of any known embedded or attached viruses, trojans, or internet =
worms.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Lisa Bradshaw" <zibbler(at)web-design-cs.com>
To: "Kehvan M. Zydhek" <kehvan(at)zydhek.net>; "LSN Bluff" =
<lsnbluff(at)hotmail.com>; <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 07:13
Subject: Re: Start with HTML or XHTML? (slightly OT)
> Kehvan,
>=20
> I agree whole heartedly! I HATE NN4! It is always the fly in the =
ointment
> for any site I design. I'm sick of having to use browser sniffers and
> alternative style sheets. Unfortunately, most clients want their site =
to
> work in all browsers possible, which includes NN4. UGH! I wish it =
would
> hurry up and die!
>=20
> Lisa
> ***********************************
> Lisa Bradshaw , Web Designer
>=20
> Crescendo Web Design - http://www.web-design-cs.com
> ***********************************
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kehvan M. Zydhek" <kehvan(at)zydhek.net>
> To: "LSN Bluff" <lsnbluff(at)hotmail.com>; <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Start with HTML or XHTML? (slightly OT)
>=20
>=20
> Let it go. Let HTML4 and earlier go. Move up to XHTML, which was made =
a
> standard TWO YEARS AGO and support the future.
>=20
> Ooops... got on a soapbox there, didn't I? Sorry! I guess I feel =
pretty
> strongly about this. I just wish more designers had the ability to say =
"no"
> to their clients when asked to build NS4 compatible sites. I =
understand why
> they don't, of course, but I just WISH they could.
>=20
> Kehvan M. Zydhek
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20